Hydrodynamic Performance of a Multi-Module Three-Cylinder Floating Breakwater System under the Influence of Reefs: A 3D Experimental Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good and valuable paper ready for publication after small corrections that authors must accomplish.

At the introduction section there are some ambiguities regarding an enumeration that starts at line 43. Position (1) is presented and then continues in capital letters. Then continue with (2) and (3) on the next page. It needs to be adjusted somehow to give a clearer information of these examples to the reader.

On page 5 immediately after figure 2 there is a large space. It must be solved for a better page aspect of the paper.

Figure 5, 6, 8, 16, 22, 23-34 must be center placed for better aspect

Large space immediately after figures 8, 13. Must be eliminated.

Space left blank on page 13 immediately after line 282. Must be eliminated.

Tables 3, 5 must be placed in the center.

On pages 17 and 18 there is the same number as figure 22. The figures from that part of the paper must be renumbered.

The message ''Error! ' Reference source not found''. It must be remedied by applying the cross-reference again.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors conducted an experimental study on a multi-module three-cylinder floating breakwater under the influence of reefs, suitable for the scope of this journal. However, some major improvements and revisions on the structure of the manuscript are required before accepting the manuscript. 

1. Abstract: The discussion of results in the abstract is quite elaborate. Please reduce this to a maximum of 2 or 3 sentences. Also, add the main conclusion of these findings.
2. Introduction, paragraph 1: Please cite references of the stated advantages and ‘unique advantages’ of floating breakwater over traditional bottom-fixed breakwaters.
3. Avoid the repetitive usage of words ‘The author of…’ has been used in the literature review—for example, in Lines 52, 64, 89, 97, 100, and so on. Instead, use the name of the author.
4. Line 164: ‘…depth of 3.4 m is shown in Figures 1 and 2’. Depth is not marked in Figures 1 and 2.
5. Line 166: ‘…a 2.5 m width box in the middle’. Please describe what do you mean by ‘box’ and its particulars.
6. Remove the word ‘diagram’ from the title of ‘Figure 2. Dimensions diagram of three cylinder floating breakwater’.
7. Line 173: It is not clear what are ‘adjacent structures’ from Figures 4 and 5 and explain why do we need different configurations of rubber ring and crash cushion.
8. Change the heading of Section 3. Experimentà Experiment setup
9. Title of ‘Figure 15. Schematic diagram of reefs construction process’. These look like realistic pictures, not ‘schematic diagrams’.
10. ‘Figure 20. Mooring line’. Missing labelling of different parts of the mooring line. Also, which mooring line among different mooring lines depicted in Figure 17 or tables 1 and 2 is shown here?
11. Check the typo ‘Moring’ in Table 2.
12. Change the title of Section 3.5. Experiment condition à Experiment setup
13. Line 236: ‘bathymetric map of a certain area in the East China Sea’- the word certain creates confusion to the reader. Please clarify if this is an assumed shape or an existing reef with an exact location in the East China Sea.
14. Please explain if measuring devices such as wave gauges and load cells have been done before the actual experiment?
15. Line 214: what are modules 4 and 5? It seems that the numbering of these modules is missing.
16. Line 246: ‘The floating breakwater system was slack moored in its equilibrium position, and the top of the four mooring lines at both ends (including anchor chains 1, 9, 10, and 18) was a polyester cable, and the bottom line was an anchor chain’. It is not clear what are top four mooring lines, ‘bottom line was an anchor chain’, from Figure 17. Please clarify this..
17. Figure 14: Label what are the crash cushions and rubber rings
18. ‘Figure 17. Serial number and origin diagram of mooring lines of 8 modules breakwater models.’- explain in the text how the serial number and origin of mooring lines are defined. For instance, what is ‘2-1’?

Also, remove Chinese characters in Figure 17.

19. Line 256: Is it ‘mooring pipe’?
20. Describe in the text: ‘breakwater model (I)’ and ‘breakwater model (II)’ used in the titles of Table 1 and Table 2.
21. Table 3: Replace ‘Rope’ with Polyester.
22. Table 4: Use ‘mooring line’ instead of ‘mooring pipe’
23. Table 4: The units of coordinates are missing.
24. Line 268: Figure 21 is not a schematic diagram
25. Use a uniform format to add units besides the variables in table 5 and axis labels of figures (22 to 30). Please use variable (unit) format instead of variable/unit, as a reader may confuse this with ratio.

For instance, in Table 5, use ‘Wave height H (m)’, instead of ‘Wave height H/m’, similar to  ‘Wave incident angle β(°)’.

26. Line 267: ‘Each wave height contained a combination of different wave periods, as shown in Figure 5’. Figure 5 does not show these.
27. Line 268: Schematic diagrams of the different wave directions are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 21.

This is not true as the title of Figure 21 says only wave direction, i.e., 90 deg. Moreover, rename the title of Figure 21.

28. Table 5 is not referred in the text.
29. The heading of the first column in Table 5 is missing. What does ‘A’ represent in the serial numbers A1-A7, A8-A13,..
30. Please explain why a lower number of wave periods have been considered for wave heights 0.1 and 0.05, as shown in Table 5.
31. Line 273: What are WGs 1-2 and WGs 3-4. Where are they positioned?
32. Line 277: Follow a standard way to write the equation.
33. Section 4. Results and Discussions: Remove repeated mention of conducting experiments in beam sea waves. This is quite useless unless you are performing tests in different wave directions.
34. Lines 280-282: Remove the sentences. This figure is already explained in the subsequent paragraph.
35. Line 287: ‘the transmission coefficients on the whole increase with an increase in period’ – this needs further clarification and is not true for T= 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1.
36. The titles of Figures 22 to 30: use a better expression of the words ‘changing curves’.
37. Line 304: A real comparison and validation of the current experimental results with previous results are missing. A mere statement is not enough.
38. Lines 326 to 329: Please add a figure to explain the different measuring points of mooring forces in the breakwater system. For instance, at present, it is not clear which mooring line number is positioned at the centre of the breakwater.
39. Line 334: This is not true for Figures 31 and 32.
40. It is not clear what are the striking outcomes from the experimental study, compared to previous research. Most of the results, such as wave attenuating coefficient, floater motion and mooring forces, echo the author’s previous research results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations on a well-written and timely paper.  

1. Only two gages were used to record wave trains in front of and behind the floating breakwater. Is this sufficient to account for the effects of the reafs on the wave patterns?
2. At a model scale ratio of 1:50, how reliable are the results for extrapolation to full scale?
3. The numerous inserts [Error! Reference source not found] in Section 4 need to be taken care of.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revised manuscript addressing my comments. Well done.